The video game industry has fast become a major player in the entertainment industry, making up to $24.75 billion dollars in revenue in 2011 (Entertainment Software Association 2012). With video games taking up such a large portion of our society’s leisure time, many have come to question if there are substantial negative impacts on those who indulge in them, especially youths. This issue has become more and more prevalent as video gaming becomes more widespread in today’s society, not to mention the tragedies of events such as the Columbine school shootings of 1999. But are video games actually causing an epidemic of violence and anti-social behavior in today’s youths or is it merely a miscommunication of wrong information spread by the mass media? In order to answer this question we need to analyse the effects that video games have on youths and examine they are reported on in popular media.

The media of today is quick to blame the video game industry for violence in male youths, often increasing the stereotype that video games are played solely by children and teenage boys. However data gained by Entertainment Software Association shows that the average age of video game players is 34 years old, with the most frequent video game purchasers being 40. The number of gamers over the age of 50 makes up 26% of the total gaming population which is 1% more than those under the age of 18. Also women make up 40% of gamers, with women over the age of 18 representing 33% of the gaming population. It should also be noted that the average gaming adult has played video games for 12 years. Two of the most important facts that came from this study is that 93% of the time parents are present when games are purchased and 64% of parents believe that video games are leaving a positive impact on their children’s lives (Entertainment Software Association 2012).

The video game industry has gained a very bad reputation in today’s society due to misconceptions spread by the mainstream media. Ferguson (2007) argues that in times mass panic and moral outrage regarding youth violence, he uses the Columbine shootings as an example, that there is a desire among policy makers and the general public for answers. He says that“…it has become tempting for the public and scientists alike to place responsibility for these crimes on external determinants rather than on the individuals who commit the crimes.”After the Columbine shootings, violence in virtual media and popular culture became the 2nd most discussed cause of the Columbine shootings in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times whilst only 1% of news stories focused on the accountability and ethical character of those responsible (Ferguson 2007).

Video games have thought to have been linked to violence in youth in recent years, with the conservatives and families often speaking out in the media against video games. However much evidence contrary to this has continually come to light only to have little to no recognition by the public or the mass media. In Fergusons and Kilburn’s (2009) study titled ‘The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review’ the concluded that there was not a causal or correlational link between violent media and aggression, also posing the question“Why the belief of media violence effects persists despite inherent weaknesses of research is somewhat of an open question.”Similarly Kutner and Olson (2008) stated that any correlation between video games and an increase in violence in children is non-existent and is not supported by any current research. They also conclude in saying that“After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy” and that any links drawn between the two are “drawn from bad or irrelevant research, muddleheaded thinking and unfounded, simplistic news reports.” Other articles have also come across similar findings; often stating that “there was no evidence in either study to support a direct link between video game exposure and aggressive or violent behavior” (Cruz, Ferguson, Ferguson, Fritz, Rueda, Smith 2012) and that “…the research results on the effects of violent video games have been inconsistent and equivocal” (Sternheimer 2007). It has even been ruled by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during Brown v. EMA/ESA that exposure to violent video games do not cause minors to act in an aggressive manner.

Even though video gaming has received such a poor reputation in the mass media, studies have shown that playing video games may actually be beneficial to those who do. A group study conducted in 2012 shows that video games can be used in a clinical setting to help improve both physical and psychological results. Video game usage helped improve the outcomes of 69% of psychological therapy cases and 50% of physical therapy cases (Carroll, Cham, King, Klem, McNamara, Primack and Rich 2012). It has also been shown that video games can be used as a form of cognitive training which can lead to improved memory and critical. These effects were documented to have lasted up to three months after the end of the trials (Buschkuehl, Jaeggi, Jonides and Shah 2011). Another test concluded that video game playing can be beneficial for adults diagnosed with clinical depression. The study showed that those who were playing video games showed a significant reduction in depression levels. The study also showed a 57% decrease in measurable depressive symptoms and a 55% decrease in anger levels (Fish, O’Brien, Russoniello, Pougatchev and Zirnov 2011, Russioniello, O’Brien, Parks 2009).

Judging on the evidence presented it can be argued that video games not only do not pose a risk for the mental health of young people but in fact may have the potential to help improve the mental state of youths both emotionally and psychologically. These studies also show that video game representations in mass media are often misconstrued and manipulated to suit the viewing audience, often reporting on false information as well as increasing the social stereotypes of video gamers.

Reference List

Buschkuehl, M, Jaeggi, S, Jonides, J & Shah, P 2011, ‘Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, viewed 13 September 2012 via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So apparently we’re required to post our topic on our blog page. So I chose the one that I know the most about; Does the extensive use of computer/video games have an adverse impact on the health of young people. What are the most recent papers? Clarify what all sides of the argument claim and only then offer your reasoned opinion based on facts.

An issue raised in our tutorial discussion this week was about WikiLeaks and if it is actually doing good, or if it is detrimental to society?

I personally believe that it is doing a great thing for society. Without sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing nut, I believe that anything exposes the secrets that a government hides form it’s citizens is doing the right thing by the people. Governments have too much power nowadays and undoubtedly hide secrets from the general public for their own gain., which is unacceptable. Even general stats like civilian deaths in war zones are often hidden and it’s up to “white knights” such as WikiLeaks to help shed light on these.

Without things such as WikiLeaks there would be nobody to question to government, and if you’re not questioning the government then you’re just letting yourself become ruled.

As for the “treason” laws that are being used against Julian Assange, it’s ridiculous that the US is even trying to try him for treason against a country he isn’t even a citizen of. I guess it’s just another example of the US extending their long arm of the law to suit themselves.

This weeks lecture actives revolve using the internet for political reasons. Whether it’s Anonymous hacktivists, signing an e-petition or wikileaks; the internet can be used very effectively to spread a political message.

The first activity was to sign an e-petition about something that was somewhat political related. Luckily for me I’ve actually already done this many months ago when our internet freedom was placed under threat by the SOPA/CISPA/PIPA bills that were going looking to be passed through US Congress. Essentially they gave the US Government a lot of free reign with copyright infringement that could potentially cause a lot of legitimate websites to be shut down and a large majority of innocent users to be wrongfully imprisoned under these new US laws. The petition that I signed (Link) is hosted by Avaaz and as of this post currently holds 803,913 signatures. (Avaaz 2012) Also Google hosted their own petition about PIPA which, according to them, has over 4.5 million signatures (Link). (Google 2012)

The second activity asks us to respond to a professional blogger at a major news site. I’ve chosen to respond to the blog post from the Guradian (Link) about Julian Assange and his recent speech at the Ecuadorean embassy that occurred recently. This campaign against Assange has turned into nothing but an attempt to smear Assange’s name in order to discredit Wikileaks and any documents that may appear on there. The US Government are afraid of their secret documents getting out to the public via Wikileaks and are doing everything in their power to silence him for good.

The third activity was to find out what Barack Obama was doing today. Coincidentally for me today Barack Obama was doing an IAmA (basically an interview) on Reddit (Link). Here I would be able to ask Barack Obama about his stance of freedom on the internet. Sadly I only found it when it was over. However another user did ask essentially this exact question. Obama’s response was:

Internet freedom is something I know you all care passionately about; I do too. We will fight hard to make sure that the internet remains the open forum for everybody – from those who are expressing an idea to those to want to start a business. And although there will be occasional disagreements on the details of various legislative proposals, I won’t stray from that principle – and it will be reflected in the platform. (Reddit 2012)

Our fourth activity is to find out what the Australian Government’s plans are in relation to internet censorship. The Austrian Government has announced that it is planning on introducing “mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) rated content.” Which essentially means that the government plans of blocking thousands of webpages and placing them on a black list. The filter itself will not filter inappropriate content from children, not will it prevent criminals from accessing and distributing sexual abuse material. (OpenInternet 2012)

For our fifth activity we are required to discuss what place censorship has in a democracy. I guess this is all a matter of a opinion and is definitely swayed by which way you lean politically (left or right, conservative or liberal). As for myself I believe that censorship in democracy should be non-existent. Free of speech should always be available to everyone. Implementing censorship is a slippery slope that can easily be abused by those in power (look at China for example).

Our sixth activity is too look into the National Broadband Network (NBN) that is being rolled out throughout Australia. The NBN will reach my house in 2015 and should hopefully bring significantly faster internet speeds to my area as well as throughout the nation, which will be good considering that Australia has terribly slow internet in comparison to the rest of the world. (NCNCo 2012)

The seventh activity was to find out who our local, state and federal representatives were and to send one a message. Mine are as follows:

The eight activity was to find out when our local member last made a speech in parliament via the online Hansard. I actually found the Hansard really difficult to use; although I did find some speeches from Mark Stewart, although it did not specify where the speeches were done (Link). I was able to send Mark Stewart a message via his Facebook account about his last speech; which also covers the last activity.

An interesting point someone made in last weeks lecture was the concept of cyber parenting; your parents following your online activities. The internet is a place that the parents of our generation (generation Y) never grew up with and can be a little skeptical and unsure of how it works and the people who frequent it. It is not uncommon for parents of children to have their home computer in a common room in their house such as a lounge or media room. Some parents may even use the services of many “nanny programs” that track online history and flag or block certain sites that may be deemed detrimental to their child. These sites are usually the general pornographic and illegal material but can also be extended to social networking sites or online games that are played with other people (i.e. Runescape, EVE, etc).

However there is a great video of what’s been termed ‘Facebook Parenting’ which is mainly when parents will add their child as a friend on Facebook in order to keep up with their lives. The video (Link) shows a father of a teenage girl who has complained about her parents on Facebook, however they catch wind and in return her father makes a video about it and posts it on her Facebook. It’s a little bit more exciting than that but I’ll let you see that in the video. It’s also interesting to see the response of teenagers on this topic as well (Link).

The idea of your parents being able to follow your movements via Facebook is a touchy subject with a lot of youths, however they can only see what the user decide to show them.

It’s a bit of a touchy subject with a lot of fine lines and thin ice surrounding it. But the issue is mostly up for argument within family circles, as each family is different in how they police their child’s online usage.